Safiya Malik

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua directed the District Collector, Solan to ensure that recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to a final order of the Himachal Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority are taken to their logical conclusion without further delay. The Court held that the vesting of disputed project land in the State Government under separate revenue proceedings could not lawfully suspend or nullify a RERA order granting monetary relief to a home buyer, and that once such an order attained finality, the authorities remained obligated to enforce it through the alternative statutory recovery mechanisms available under the H.P. Land Revenue Act.

The dispute arose from a housing unit booked by the petitioner in a community housing project promoted by private developers in Kasauli, Himachal Pradesh. The promoters represented themselves as owners of certain land and claimed to have obtained necessary permissions from competent authorities for developing the project. Acting upon these representations, the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell dated 26 May 2015 for a housing unit valued at ₹88,00,000 and paid ₹78,00,491 as part consideration. However, possession of the housing unit was not delivered in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

Also Read: Allahabad High Court's Five-Year Inaction After Reserving Judgment Forces Supreme Court To Invoke Article 139A And Transfer Revisions To Itself

The petitioner subsequently approached the Real Estate Regulatory Authority under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The authority allowed the complaint and directed the promoters to refund the amounts received from the complainants along with interest calculated at the State Bank of India’s highest marginal cost of lending rate plus 2 percent, amounting to 9.3 percent simple interest from the dates of payment.

After non-compliance by the promoters, the authority issued a recovery certificate for ₹1,21,61,450. The District Collector declared the amount recoverable as arrears of land revenue under Section 103 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 and transmitted the matter for execution before the Tehsildar (Recovery), Solan. However, the recovery proceedings stopped after it was recorded that the project land had vested in the State government pursuant to proceedings initiated under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972.

The Court examined whether vesting of the project land in the State government could halt the execution of a refund order passed by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The Bench noted that the authority’s order directing refund with interest had attained finality and that a recovery certificate had already been issued for enforcement.

The Court observed “Merely on the ground that land with respect to which the petitioner had claimed redressal of his grievance before RERA has now been ordered to be vested in the State Government, the recovery proceedings for implementing the final order passed by RERA whereby the petitioner has been held entitled to monetary compensation from respondents No. 5 & 6, cannot be put on hold/stopped.”

Referring to the statutory scheme under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, the Court noted that Section 40 provides a mechanism for recovery of interest, penalty or compensation imposed by the authority as arrears of land revenue. It also examined the provisions under the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act governing recovery of such arrears.

The Court recorded “Adequate safeguards are available in RERA & H.P. Land Revenue Act for protecting the rights of the petitioner for recovery of monetary compensation from respondents No. 5 & 6, for enforcement of order passed by RERA under the provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act.”

The Court further noted that the Tehsildar (Recovery) had not proceeded with the recovery proceedings for more than two years after recording that the land stood vested in the State government. The judgment stated “Where statute prescribes explicit procedure for the recovery of arrears, such procedure must be scrupulously adhered to in its entirety. No deviation is permissible.”

Addressing the effect of the vesting order, the Court recorded “The vesting of the subject land in the State pursuant to a separate order does not defeat or render the recovery order nugatory. The Act itself provides alternative mechanism for execution.”

Also Read: Habeas Corpus Not Maintainable In Parental Child Custody Disputes: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Bench also referred to statutory mechanisms available for enforcing recovery orders, stating: “The statutory alternatives-such as by service of a writ of demand on the defaulter or by arrest & detention of his person or by distress and sale of his movable property or by proceedings against other immovable property of the defaulter etc. ensure the order’s enforceability despite changes in the debtor’s asset profile.”

The Court directed “Thus, the recovery proceedings shall proceed forthwith in accordance with the prescribed modes. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondents No.3- The District Collector, Solan to ensure that recovery proceedings initiated by the Competent Authority pursuant to the orders dated 26.02.2021 passed by RERA (Annexure P-3), recovery certificate issued by RERA dated 17.10.2022 (Annexure P-4) and the Demand Order issued by respondent No.3 on 14.11.2022 (Annexure P-5) are taken to their logical conclusion expeditiously in accordance with law.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. N.K. Bhalla, Advocate

For the Respondents: Ms. Sheetal Vyas, CGC; Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General; Mr. Raman Ravi Verma, Advocate.

Case Title: Pawan Wasant Borle v. Union of India & Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: HHC:4182
Case Number: CWP No. 1153 of 2026
Bench: Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua